Before you work in most countries, you know ahead of time what the laws are, and that you will be taxed. If you go ahead and work after acknowledging those conditions then you have voluntarily agreed to abide by them. Nobody is 'forcing' you to work. If you don't want to work under those rules most countries are happy for you to sit on welfare.

We will carry you.

Alternatively you could emigrate to any number of countries or regions with no taxes and work there.

Would you still be opposed to Nasa if it was being funded out of a Soverign Wealth Fund?

Liberty is not a gift, it's a fundamental right. A government has no right to demand that you give over your money, or leave, any more than I have a right to demand that you give me your money or leave.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

The people of America got together and freely agreed to establish a government which could exact taxes and persue basic science. They make no demand on you, so what are you complaining about? If they didn't want their goverment to do that, then they would change it.

Government is not some evil force that came from outerspace.

If 'Liberty' as you call it was a fundamental right, then you wouldn't have to defend it, achieve, and you couldn't lose it.

But since 'liberty' is this 'right' why don't the Americans have the Liberty to run their country however they wish?

The people of America got together and freely agreed to establish a government which could exact taxes and persue basic science. They make no demand on you, so what are you complaining about? If they didn't want their goverment to do that, then they would change it.

Government is not some evil force that came from outerspace.

If 'Liberty' as you call it was a fundamental right, then you wouldn't have to defend it, achieve, and you couldn't lose it.

But since 'liberty' is this 'right' why don't the Americans have the Liberty to run their country however they wish?

Shuki doesn't seem to mind that the US government is spending $30Billion on military hardware for Israel during the next decade. Does he believe that every taxpayer in the US agrees with this policy? Is this not supporting the lifestyle of a group of individuals? What about the Liberty of the Palestinians living behind the New Iron Curtain that his country is building around the Gaza Strip? Where did the Israeli government get the authority to tell them to leave their land? Bah, religion and politics, my two least favorite subjects.

Very few companies have the resources to spend Billions on technology that won't have commercial value for decades. How long did it take for the cmos tech developed on Viking to show up in everybodies cellphones? Thirty years?

Especially when you can't even imagine what the applications might be. Even research powerhouses like IBM and INTEL have tightly targeted research drives. And even they only do really blue sky stuff like inventing relational databases and the internet when organisations like NASA fund it.

How would a medical imaging company know to look for their next break through in technology research driven by the demands of studying Mars?

Blind Basic science research in is the national interest of the country persuing it, because they get the spin-offs first, but eventually it is in the interest of every human being because you have no idea how something built for a Jupiter probe might affect you.

Individuals are in it for themselves, businesses are in it for themselves, nations are in it for themselves and species are in it for themselves.

It probably doesn't benefit me as an individual in the span of my life to protect bio-diversity on the planet, but I am pretty sure it benefits humanity as a whole, so I have a profit motive in looking out for humanity but only if I look at it on a longer time frame than next weeks paycheck.

Here in the UK, there is a plan to 'tax' all phone land lines at about £6 per YEAR, in order that the money raised can be used to improve the broadband network infrastructure all over the UK.

There are a lot of people who are very angry at this, who believe that there taxes should not be used to improve the broadband of other people. For example, those in the cities who have a good BBB connection, don't see why they should pay more tax so that people who live in villages get a better service.

These people seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the way tax works, they want tax to be spent only on things that THEY want improved.

They conveniently forget that taxes are used for the benefit (usually!) of the whole country, and that means there will be areas where it is spent that you don't agree with.

For example, I don't like the fact that my taxes are spent on supporting Israel's oppression of the Palestinians (just to keep things topical). However, I don't complain about it, or refuse to pay tax because of this. I accept that there will be areas where taxes are spent that I don't agree with. I can always vote out the government at a later date (I hope!)

I do have a big problem with economic foreign aid to Israel. It isn't in the United States' interest, and it certainly isn't in Israel's interest. It enables to United States to dictate policy to Israel, instead of Israel following its own self interest. All economic aid to Israel should be stopped.

Regarding military aid, if the US feels that it's not in its national interests to give military aid to Israel, the US shouldn't give a penny. If it feels that it is in its national interests to give aid to Israel, for example to support an ally in the war against Islamic fundamentalism, then it is welcome to do so. And everyone should be aware that the US is doing so out of no one's interests other than its own.

The free market is much better at providing people's needs than government. If a technology is needed, there will be a profit motive. If there is no profit motive, that means that the technology is not needed enough for people, of their own free will, to pay for it.

About the "Palestinians":The Arabs (there never historically any concept of a separate Arab national entity called "Palestine") don't care about living in "Palestine", or making a state, they simply want the Jews not to have a state.The Jewish Bible mentions Jerusalem over 700 times. The Koran mentions Jerusalem 0 times. The Muslims pray towards Mecca. The Jews pray toward Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. The Jews mentions Jerusalem 3 times a day (at least) in prayer. The Muslims could care less.

When Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan, it was completely neglected. As soon as Jerusalem was recaptured by Israel, it was treated like the Jewish capital it is.

The idea of the Land of Israel is central to Judaism. Islam, on the other hand, sees the whole world under Islamic domination. It doesn't matter if it's Israel, or Spain, once held by Islam, a territory must remain under Islamic rule.

Simply put, a government has obligations to its citizens, and therefore Israel, as the Jewish State, has obligations toward the Jews. Just as Mexicans have no national rights in the United States, Arabs and other non-Jews have no national rights in Israel. Civil rights, yes. But not national rights.

It is important therefore to understand that the Arabs and Muslims are not demanding civil rights in Israel, but national rights.As the Arabs, in Israel and out of Israel, are attempting to deny the Jews' national rights, we have the right to stop them. By any means necessary.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

The free market is much better at providing people's needs than government. If a technology is needed, there will be a profit motive. If there is no profit motive, that means that the technology is not needed enough for people, of their own free will, to pay for it.

If the technology will take thirty years to mature the profit motive will be lower than a short term technology. So no private citizen will rationally invest in it.

A Government will still exist in 200 years, so it has a good reason to invest long term. Some corporations are set up this way, especially in Japan, but not many.

Somalia has a completely free market, but has a bit of trouble providing peoples basic needs. Care to explain?

If the technology will take thirty years to mature the profit motive will be lower than a short term technology. So no private citizen will rationally invest in it.

If no private citizen or group of private citizens will rationally invest in a technology, and you forcibly take their money in order to invest in that technology, I believe that is morally repugnant. Why is your idea of where to invest their money so much better than their idea of where to invest their money?

Quote:

Somalia has a completely free market, but has a bit of trouble providing peoples basic needs. Care to explain?

I don't know anything about Somalia. I don't know how free their economy is. However, Somalia, the government, has no obligations to provide people's basic needs. If someone is needy, they should be provided for by charity, given out of people's own free will.In addition, a free market is not the only factor in the health of an economy. Culture plays a big role. It may be (again, I don't know anything about Somalia) that Somalia doesn't have a culture that provides for a healthy economy. See http://www.pjtv.com/video/National_Security_Review_With_Bill_Whittle/The_Manmade_Disaster_in_Haiti/2954/

A free market does not provide a perfect society. It simply is better than any other system.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

From reading the Wikipedia entry on Somalia, it seems that instead of having a government that promotes a free society, there isn't any stable government at all! Government is needed, not to look after an economy, but to ensure the stability of a society. For example, a legal system is necessary that prevents people from stealing from and murdering each other. If there is no stability in a society, there is no free market, because people cannot ensure their safety or the safety of their investments. Freedom is not the same thing as anarchy.Keeping a stable society is a national interest, not just a personal or group interest, and therefore legitimate.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

If the technology will take thirty years to mature the profit motive will be lower than a short term technology. So no private citizen will rationally invest in it.

If no private citizen or group of private citizens will rationally invest in a technology, and you forcibly take their money in order to invest in that technology, I believe that is morally repugnant. Why is your idea of where to invest their money so much better than their idea of where to invest their money?

Quote:

Somalia has a completely free market, but has a bit of trouble providing peoples basic needs. Care to explain?

I don't know anything about Somalia. I don't know how free their economy is. However, Somalia, the government, has no obligations to provide people's basic needs. If someone is needy, they should be provided for by charity, given out of people's own free will.In addition, a free market is not the only factor in the health of an economy. Culture plays a big role. It may be (again, I don't know anything about Somalia) that Somalia doesn't have a culture that provides for a healthy economy. See http://www.pjtv.com/video/National_Security_Review_With_Bill_Whittle/The_Manmade_Disaster_in_Haiti/2954/

A free market does not provide a perfect society. It simply is better than any other system.

The concept of untargeted research seems to elude you. Untargeted basic research, especially space reasearch, has unpredictable results. It will be profitable to someone in society, but you can't know who that will be. So it is fair that everyone chips in. Collective investment in a technology lottery is not nearly the same as redistribution of wealth.

Why would you contribute to someone else profits, whne you could focus on your own? Without government research programs these things would not get done and the profits would not be realised.

If a free market is better than any other system then it should perform better.

Somalia has no *government* stealing or holding anybody back, so it should be outperforming, if its free market is better as you claim.

Please make up your mind, should there be a government "stealing" from people or not?

While you are at it, Milton Friedman doesn't think a free market should recognise borders, nationality or citizenship either.